State v. Foster

2022 Ohio 4247
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Foster. Read the opinion of the Court — 2021 Ohio 1454
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided November 28, 2022·No. 2021-P-0019·Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Foster, 2022-Ohio-4247.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2021-P-0019

Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas

MATTHEW S. FOSTER, Trial Court No. 2019 CR 00390 Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Decided: November 28, 2022 Judgment: Affirmed

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Theresa M. Scahill, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Richard E. Hackerd, 55 Public Square, Suite 2100, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellant).

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Matthew S. Foster, appeals the January 15, 2021 judgment of

the Portage County Court of Common Pleas revoking his community control sanctions

and sentencing him to 30-months imprisonment. For the reasons set forth herein, the

judgment is affirmed.

{¶2} In April 2019, police received a call reporting that a disorderly and

intoxicated person was getting into a vehicle. They attempted to stop the vehicle, but the

driver fled; the police pursued the vehicle through three jurisdictions. After the vehicle was stopped, the individual, ultimately identified as Mr. Foster, fled on foot and struggled

with police until he was eventually arrested.

{¶3} Mr. Foster was indicted for failure to comply with the order or signal of a

police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331, a felony of the third degree; operating a vehicle

while intoxicated, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and (G), a misdemeanor of the first

degree; refusal to submit to a chemical test, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) and

4511.191, a misdemeanor of the first degree; and resisting arrest, in violation of R.C.

2921.33(A), a misdemeanor of the second degree. Ultimately, Mr. Foster pleaded no

contest, and the court found him guilty.

{¶4} The court sentenced Mr. Foster to community control sanctions and placed

him under the supervision of the Portage County Adult Probation Department. In addition

to the standard rules of the probation department, Mr. Foster was given the following

conditions: (1) undergo a substance abuse evaluation and follow all recommendations;

(2) undergo random substance abuse testing; and (3) see his physician to get his

prescription medications regulated. Mr. Foster was notified that if he violated the terms

of his community control, he could receive more restrictive community control sanctions

or be ordered to serve a prison term of 30 months.

{¶5} In May 2020, the probation department filed a motion to revoke community-

control sanctions stating that Mr. Foster had failed to report as directed. A hearing was

held in June 2020; the court found that a violation had occurred and ordered that Mr.

Foster continue community control as previously ordered.

{¶6} In September 2020, the probation department filed a second motion to

revoke stating that Mr. Foster had again failed to report as directed. Mr. Foster failed to

Case No. 2021-P-0019 appear for the hearing and a warrant was issued for his arrest. The matter was

rescheduled. Mr. Foster appeared without counsel. The court appointed him counsel

and again rescheduled the hearing. At that hearing, the court found that Mr. Foster had

violated the terms of community control and ordered him to complete the halfway

program, RIP, as ordered in Summit County.

{¶7} In December 2020, the probation department filed a third motion to revoke

based on Mr. Foster’s failure to complete the RIP program. Mr. Foster again failed to

appear for the scheduled hearing and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He was

arrested in January 2021. At the January 15, 2021 hearing, Mr. Foster admitted that he

had not completed the program, but claimed that the failure was not his fault because the

program required him to obtain a medical clearance. The court granted the motion to

revoke, finding the violation was not technical, and sentenced Mr. Foster to serve 30

months in prison and credited him with time served.

{¶8} Mr. Foster filed an untimely appeal pro se. This court granted Mr. Foster’s

request for the appointment of counsel and granted him leave to file a delayed appeal.

Mr. Foster raises one assignment of error for our review, which states:

{¶9} The trial court abused its discretion when it revoked probation on January 15, 2021.

{¶10} An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s

community control based on a violation of one or more of the conditions of community

control for an abuse of discretion. State v. Spragling, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2015-A-

0008, 2015-Ohio-2598, ¶15 citing State v. Dunning, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2005-L-142,

2006-Ohio-3412, ¶20. “‘The term [“abuse of discretion”] is one of art, connoting judgment

exercised by a court, which neither comports with reason, nor the record.’” State v. 3

Case No. 2021-P-0019 Underwood, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2008-L-113, 2009-Ohio-2089, ¶30, citing State v.

Ferranto, 112 Ohio St. 667, 676-678 (1925). “[A]n abuse of discretion is the trial court’s

‘failure to exercise sound, reasonable, and legal decision-making.’” Ivancic v. Enos, 11th

Dist. Lake No. 2011-L-050, 2012-Ohio-3639, ¶70, quoting State v. Beechler, 2d Dist.

Clark No. 09-CA-54, 2010-Ohio-1900, ¶62, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (8

Ed.Rev.2004) 11.

{¶11} Under his sole assignment of error, Mr. Foster argues that it was impossible

for him to complete the RIP program because they required a medical clearance before

they would admit him. However, the record supports the conclusion that Mr. Foster was

not diligent in his attempts to obtain the required medical clearance until after he was

arrested on the warrant for the revocation hearing.

{¶12} On November 10, 2020, the court ordered Mr. Foster to complete the RIP

program. On December 3, 2020, Mr. Foster’s probation officer filed a motion to modify or

revoke probation based on his failure to complete the RIP program. A hearing on the

motion was scheduled for December 28, 2020. Mr. Foster failed to appear, and a warrant

was issued for his arrest. Mr. Foster was arrested on January 12, 2021. At the January

15, 2021 hearing, defendant explained his failure to complete the RIP program by saying,

in pertinent part:

{¶13} At the RIP Program, they told me I had to leave there to go get a clearance for my lung because they didn’t have no breathing machine there.

{¶14} And then I went to the hospital, they said, oh, we can’t sign a release for lungs, we have to do CAT scans, you have to do breathing-I had a CAT scan set up from Dr. Husane in Portage Lakes. That was yesterday.

Case No. 2021-P-0019 {¶15} I’m supported to-all it is a piece of paper I go and do CAT scan and blood results and the medical appointment is I believe the scan and the blood results on the lung is March 3rd I believe. (Sic throughout.)

{¶16} Mr. Foster’s statement, “that was yesterday,” could be taken to mean that

he had previously scheduled an appointment with a doctor for January 14, 2021, or that

Mr. Foster had first contacted a doctor to begin obtaining medical clearances on January

14, 2021. It appears the court interpreted his statements to mean he had not started

obtaining the medical clearances in a timely manner, and the record supports this

interpretation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Foster, 2022 Ohio 4247 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).

2022 Ohio 4247 (State v. Foster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Dunning, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2006)
2006 Ohio 3412 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
State v. Underwood, 2008-L-113 (5-1-2009)
2009 Ohio 2089 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2009)
State v. Ferranto
148 N.E. 362 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1925)